Psychometric properties of the Polish version of the Multiple Sclerosis Self-Management Scale – Revised

References

• Lublin FD, Reingold SC; National Multiple Sclerosis Society (USA) Advisory Committee on Clinical Trials of New Agents in Multiple Sclerosis. Defining the clinical course of multiple sclerosis results of an international survey. Neurology. 1996;46(4):907–911.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilski M, Tasiemski T, Kocur P. Demographic, socioeconomic and clinical correlates of self-management in multiple sclerosis. Disab Rehabil. 2015;37(21):1970–1975.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwartz C, Frohner R. Contribution of demographic, medical, and social support variables in predicting the mental health dimension of quality of life among people with multiple sclerosis. Health Soc Work. 2005;30(3):203–212.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fitzgerald SM, Rumrill PD, Bishop M. Demographic, functional factors, and residential circumstance as predictors of the specialized housing needs of Americans with multiple sclerosis. J Rehabil. 2013;79:23–32.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kralik D, Koch T, Price K, et al. Chronic illness self-management: taking action to create order. J Clin Nurs. 2004;13(2):259–267.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barlow J, Turner A, Wright C. A randomized controlled study of the Arthritis Self-Management Programme in the UK. Health Education Research. 2000;15(6):665–680.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lorig K, Gonzalez V, Laurent D, et al. Arthritis self-management program variations: three studies. Arthritis Care and Research. 1998;11(6):448–454.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilski M, Tasiemski T. Meaning of Self in Multiple Sclerosis: Implications for Treatment and Rehabilitation. In: Asea Alexzander AA, Geraci F, Kaur P, editors. Multiple sclerosis: bench to bedside. Global perspectives on a silent killer. Advances in experimental medicine and biology. 958. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2017. p. 43–55.
   Google Scholar
• Barlow J, Wright C, Sheasby J, et al. Self-management approaches for people with chronic conditions: a review. Patient Educ Couns. 2002;48(2):177–187.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bishop M, Frain M, Tschopp MK. Self-management, perceived control, and subjective quality of life in multiple sclerosis: an exploratory study. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin. 2008;52(1):45–56.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ghahari S, Khoshbin LS, Forwell SJ. The Multiple Sclerosis Self-Management Scale: clinicometric testing. Int J MS Care. 2014;16(2):61–67.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rae-Grant AD, Turner AP, Sloan A, et al. Self-management in neurological disorders: systematic review of the literature and potential interventions in multiple sclerosis care. JRRD. 2011;48(9):1087.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Navipour H, Madani H, Mohebbi MR, et al. Improved fatigue in individualswith multiple sclerosis after participating in a short-term self-care programme. NRE. 2006;21(1):37–41.
   Google Scholar
• Kos D, Duportail M, D'hooghe MB, et al. Multidisciplinary fatigue management programme in multiple sclerosis: a randomized clinical trial. Mult Scler. 2007;13(8):996–1003.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holman H, Lorig K. Patient self-management: a key to effectiveness and efficiency in care of chronic disease. Public Health Rep. 2004;119(3):224–239.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berger BA, Liang H, Hudmon KS. Evaluation of software-based telephone counseling to enhance medication persistency among patients with multiple sclerosis. J Am Pharm Assoc (2003). 2005;45(4):466–472.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O'Hara L, Cadbury H, De Souza L, et al. Evaluation of the effectiveness of professionally guided self-care for people with multiple sclerosis living in the community: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Rehabil. 2002;16(2):119–128.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jongen PJ, Wesnes K, van Geel B, et al. Does self-efficacy affect cognitive performance in persons with clinically isolated syndrome and early relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis? Multiple Sclerosis International — an Open Access Journal. 2015;2015:1–8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barlow J, Turner A, Edwards R, et al. A randomized controlled trial of lay-led self-management for people with multiple sclerosis. Patient Education and Counseling. 2009;77(1):81–89.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bombardier CH, Cunniffe M, Wadhwani R, et. al. The efficacy of telephone counseling for health promotion in people with multiple sclerosis: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89(10):1849–1856.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bishop M, Frain M. Development and initial analysis of multiple sclerosis self-management scale. International Journal of MS Care. 2007;9(2):35–42.
   Google Scholar
• Bishop M, Frain MP. The multiple sclerosis self-management scale: revision and psychometric analysis. Rehabil Psychol. 2011;56(2):150–159.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, et al. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25:3186–3191.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hobart J, Lamping D, Fitzpatrick R, et al. The Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale (MSIS-29): A new patient-based outcome measure. Brain. 2001;124(5):962–973.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jamroz-Wiśniewska A, Papuć E, Bartosik-Psujek H, et al. Validation of selected aspects of psychometry of the Polish version of the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale 29 (MSIS-29.). Neurol Neurochir Pol. 2007;41(3):215–222.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoogervorst EL, Zwemmer J, Jelles B, et al. Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale (MSIS-29): Relation to established measures of impairment and disability. Mult Scler. 2004;10(5):569–574.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riazi A, Hobart JC, Lamping DL, et al. Evidence-based measurement in multiple sclerosis: the psychometric properties of the physical and psychological dimensions of three quality of life rating scales. Mult Scler. 2003;9(4):411–419.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwarzer R, Jerusalem M. Generalized self-efficacy scale. In Weinman J, Wright S, Johnston M, editors. Measures in health psychology: A user’s portfolio. Causal and control beliefs. Windsor, UK: Nfer-Nelson; 1995. p. 35–37.
   Google Scholar
• Juczyński Z. Narzędzia stosowane w promocji i psychologii zdrowia. Warsaw: Psychological Test Laboratory of the Polish Psychiartric Association; 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Kurtzke JF. Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis: an expanded disability status scale (EDSS). Neurology. 1983;33(11):1444–1452.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zinbarg RE, Revelle W, Yovel I, et al. Cronbach’s α, Revelle’s β, McDonald’s ωH: Their relations with each other and two alternative conceptualizations of reliability. Psychometrika. 2005;70(1):123–133.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDonald RP. Test Theory: a unified treatment. Mahwah, New Jersey: LEA; 1999.
   Google Scholar
• Rizopoulos D. ltm: An R package for latent variable modeling and item response theory analyses. J Stat Soft. 2006;17(5):1–25.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeMars C. Item response theory. New York: Oxford University Press; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Koch WR. Likert scaling using the graded response latent trait model. Appl Psychol Measure. 1983;7(1):15–32.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hu LT, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling. 1999;6(1):1–55.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tucker LR, Lewis C. A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika. 1973;38(1):1–10.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Browne MW, Cudeck R. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: Bollen KA, Long JS. (Eds.), Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1993. p. 136–162.
   Google Scholar
• Kaiser HF. The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 1960;20(1):141–151.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cattell RB. The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behav Res. 1966;1(2):245–276.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ciżkowicz B. Omega McDonalda jako alternatywa dla alfa Cronbacha w szacowaniu rzetelności testu. Polskie Forum Psychologiczne. 2018;23(2):311–329.
   Google Scholar
• Trojano M, Lucchese G, Graziano G, MSBase Study Group and the New Zealand MS Prevalence Study Group, et al. Geographical variations in sex ratio trends over time in multiple sclerosis. PLOS One. 2012;7(10):e48078.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar